Implications Memes

The romantic bookstore meetup takes a nerdy turn when "I love logic" gets a response of "Me too!" - which is exactly what a logic enthusiast would appreciate! The bottom panel reveals why this is so perfect: in propositional logic, "p → q" (if p then q) is logically equivalent to "¬p ∨ q" (not p or q). So when she says "Me too," she's essentially confirming the logical implication. If we let p = "I love logic" then her response q = "Me too" satisfies the truth table perfectly! She didn't just agree - she demonstrated logical equivalence in action. It's the ultimate flirtation for logic nerds. Who needs pickup lines when you can demonstrate material implication?

This is a classic case of someone trying to apply mathematical set theory to social concepts without understanding how logical implications actually work! The notation in the title (A ⊇ B ⇒ A ⊆ B) is mathematically incorrect - if A contains B (superset), it doesn't imply that A is contained in B (subset). That's like saying "if all squares are rectangles, then all rectangles are squares" - which is demonstrably false! The tweet confuses subset relationships with categorical statements. In set theory, "trans women are women" would be expressed as "trans women ⊆ women" (trans women are a subset of women), but that doesn't logically imply the reverse statement "women ⊆ trans women" (all women are trans women). The person clearly slept through their discrete mathematics class and now thinks they've made some profound logical discovery. Next time, bring coffee to those 8 AM math lectures!

For mathematicians who can't commit to a solid implication! That wavy arrow is basically saying "A kinda-sorta implies B" – perfect for those proofs where you're 60% confident but need to submit something before the deadline. It's the mathematical equivalent of saying "trust me bro" in a peer-reviewed paper. Next up: the "I think therefore it might be" symbol for philosophy majors who can't make decisions.